BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 431|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 431
Author: Benoit (R) and Leno (D)
Amended: 6/4/09
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 4/28/09
AYES: Leno, Benoit, Cedillo, Hancock, Huff, Steinberg,
Wright
SENATE FLOOR : 36-0, 5/11/09 (Consent)
AYES: Aanestad, Alquist, Ashburn, Benoit, Cogdill,
Corbett, Correa, Cox, Denham, DeSaulnier, Ducheny,
Dutton, Florez, Hancock, Harman, Hollingsworth, Huff,
Kehoe, Leno, Liu, Lowenthal, Maldonado, Negrete McLeod,
Oropeza, Padilla, Pavley, Romero, Runner, Steinberg,
Strickland, Walters, Wiggins, Wolk, Wright, Wyland, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon, Cedillo, Simitian, Vacancy
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 74-0, 7/9/09 (Consent) - See last page for
vote
SUBJECT : Adult probation: transfers
SOURCE : Chief Probation Officers of California
DIGEST : This bill requires that a court transfer a
person released on probation to a court in the county in
which the person resides permanently, with specified
exceptions.
CONTINUED
SB 431
Page
2
Assembly Amendments (1) restated procedures to include a
noticed motion, and (2) required the Judicial Council to
promulgate rules of court for procedures.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law provides for transfer of probation as follows:
1. Whenever any person is released upon probation, the case
may be transferred to any court of the same rank in any
other county in which the person resides permanently,
meaning the stated intention to remain for the duration
of probation, provided that the court of the receiving
county shall first be given an opportunity to determine
whether the person does reside in and has stated the
intention to remain in that county for the duration of
probation. If the court finds that the person does not
reside in or has not stated an intention to remain in
that county for the duration of probation, it may refuse
to accept the transfer. The court and the probation
department shall give the matter of investigating those
transfers precedence over all actions or proceedings
therein, except actions or proceedings to which special
precedence is given by law, to the end that all those
transfers shall be completed expeditiously.
2. Except where the person is granted probation for drug
treatment pursuant to Proposition 36, if the court of
the receiving county finds that the person does
permanently reside in or has permanently moved to the
county, it may, in its discretion, either accept the
entire jurisdiction over the case, or assume supervision
of the probationer on a courtesy basis.
3. Whenever a person is granted probation under Section
1210.1 (Proposition 36), the sentencing court may, in
its discretion, transfer jurisdiction of the entire
case, upon a finding by the receiving court of the
person's permanent residency in the receiving county.
4. The order of transfer shall contain an order committing
the probationer to the care and custody of the probation
officer of the receiving county and an order for
reimbursement of reasonable costs for processing the
SB 431
Page
3
transfer to be paid to the sending county in accordance
with Section 1203.1b. A copy of the orders and
probation reports shall be transmitted to the court and
probation officer of the receiving county within two
weeks of the finding by that county that the person does
permanently reside in or has permanently moved to that
county, and thereafter the receiving court shall have
entire jurisdiction over the case, with the like power
to again request transfer of the case whenever it seems
proper. (Section 1203.9 of the Penal Code)
This bill amends #1 above to instead provide that whenever
a person is released on probation, the court, upon noticed
motion, shall transfer the case to the superior court in
any other county in which the person resides permanently,
meaning with the stated intention to remain for the
duration of probation, unless the transferring court
determines that the transfer would be inappropriate and
states its reasons on the record. Upon notice of the
motion for transfer, the court of the proposed receiving
county may provide comments for the record regarding the
proposed transfer, following procedures set forth in rules
of court developed by the Judicial Council for this
purpose, pursuant to subdivision (e). The court and the
probation department shall give the matter of investigating
those transfers precedence over all actions or proceedings
therein, except actions or proceedings to which special
precedence is given by law, to the end that all those
transfers shall be completed expeditiously.
This bill provides that, notwithstanding the above, when a
person is released on probation, the sentencing court shall
transfer the entire jurisdiction of the case to the county
in which that person permanently resides, unless the court
determines on the record that the transfer would not be
appropriate. The receiving county must accept the entire
jurisdiction over the case, unless it determines that the
probationer does not intend to reside permanently in that
county.
This bill requires the Judicial Council to promulgate rules
of court for procedures by which the proposed receiving
county shall receive notice of the motion for transfer and
by which responsive comments may be transmitted to the
SB 431
Page
4
court of the transferring county.
This bill also applies these provisions to transfers of
persons granted probation under Proposition 36 for drug
treatment.
This bill requires the Judicial Council to adopt rules
providing factors for the court's consideration when
determining the appropriateness of transfer, including, but
not limited to, (1) permanency of residency of the
offender, (2) local programs available for the offender,
and (3) restitution orders and victim issues.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/9/09)
Chief Probation Officers of California (source)
California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association
Judicial Council of California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author:
"Current law results in a significant risk to public
safety with thousands of adult probationers being
supervised ineffectively by Probation Departments outside
of their County of residence.
"Under current law, California County Probation
Departments are responsible for the supervision of adult
offenders placed on probation by the Superior Court.
Most of those placed on probation reside in the County
where the crime, prosecution, and grant of probation
occurred. This means that the Probation Department
supervises the Probationer residing in the Probation
Department's geographical jurisdiction (County), which
facilitates probation monitoring and supportive services
that promote public safety.
"However, thousands of adult probationers reside in a
different County than the probation department
responsible for their supervision. Some of these adult
probationers are concurrently under the wasteful,
SB 431
Page
5
duplicative probation supervision of multiple probation
departments. Probation departments do not have the
capacity to provide for effective supervision of adult
probationers living in other counties.
"SB 431 would establish the Probation Department of the
adult probationer's County of residence as the Probation
Department responsible for probation supervision."
According to the bill's sponsor, the Chief Probation
Officers of California, the current system has resulted in
very few transfers but many probationers living in a
different county than the probation department with
jurisdiction over them. The sponsors state that this has
resulted in wasteful duplication of effort and a potential
threat to public safety.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Anderson, Arambula, Beall, Bill
Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block, Blumenfield,
Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Carter, Chesbro, Conway,
Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, DeVore,
Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes,
Fuller, Furutani, Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick, Gilmore,
Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill, Huber,
Huffman, Jeffries, Knight, Lieu, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal,
Ma, Mendoza, Miller, Monning, Nestande, Niello, Nielsen,
John A. Perez, V. Manuel Perez, Portantino, Ruskin,
Salas, Saldana, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Audra
Strickland, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Tran,
Villines, Yamada, Bass
NO VOTE RECORDED: Charles Calderon, Duvall, Jones,
Krekorian, Nava, Vacancy
RJG:mw 7/10/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****